3 ms·

> "Choice" is a powerful illusion driven by our hypercompetent rationalizing system, whose purpose is to hide our true intentions in order to help us better ope

> "Choice" is a powerful illusion driven by our hypercompetent rationalizing system, whose purpose is to hide our true intentions in order to help us better operate in a social world. In the end, we are just elaborate stimulus-response systems, that is unless you believe in a "soul" or pseudoscientific quantum magic. This is ultimately a very big argument that is hard to have over the text. But I have had this way of looking at things earlier in my life, and I've rationalized it in about the same way that you do in your post, and have now had more life experience that showed me that it is a dead-end. Choice is only as much of an "illusion" as everything else: as science, as physical objects, as chemicals, as determinism. Once you start getting deeper into nature of things, you'll see that those concepts are not much better, not any less illusory than "choice". So anything being an "illusion" does not say so much about nature of things, because everything is. The ultimate difference is in your personal life. If you see yourself as "elaborate stimulus-response system" - you'll have a hard time making hard choices and changing your life to the way you want it to be. (Do you even believe in wanting anything then? Besides just what you can rationalize with evolution (sex and food)?) If you allow other categories, you'll find that your mind and yes, soul have many more resources and much more energy to create extraordinary things in your life and in lives of people around you (ie, in the consensus reality). One difficulty is that this difference is sometimes hard to logically talk about because of how unconscious people are. To quote Jordan Peterson (highly recommended) - people say that they like determinism and science, - and yet they act is they were sentient moral beings with choice. There is one thing that people say and think - and another that they do. For example, many people might be thinking about determinism and chemicals, and yet in their personal life they make choices like helping others, like building a better future, like sacrificing instant pleasures or even all bodily pleasures in order to achieve some higher goals, which will not even bring them any of those stimulus-response-based evolutionary candies. Just because someone is not conscious about being sentient, does not mean they are not sentient. (There are different definitions of the word `sentient`, of course, but this is the one that I am proposing is the most useful one.)

iamnothere 9y ago
Thanks for the discussion, even though it is indeed a difficult one to have over a web forum! I think our positions may be more similar than either of us assumed. > One difficulty is that this difference is sometimes hard to logically talk about because of how unconscious people are. To quote Jordan Peterson (highly recommended) - people say that they like determinism and science, - and yet they act is they were sentient moral beings with choice. There is one thing that people say and think - and another that they do. For example, many people might be thinking about determinism and chemicals, and yet in their personal life they make choices like helping others, like building a better future, like sacrificing instant pleasures or even all bodily pleasures in order to achieve some higher goals, which will not even bring them any of those stimulus-response-based evolutionary candies. This is exactly the case. It would be crippling to live any other way! So much of how we think and act is more or less automatic, including our mental framing of reality and "choice." Attempting to oppose those processes is a constant battle without any real benefit. (But it is still important to understand this condition of reality while dealing with other people, designing systems, and so on!) Interestingly, because we also can't really "choose" (under my definition of "choice") how we see ourselves or our reality, our beliefs about choice and creativity and so on are really driven by the information that we take in and internalize. Approaches like Peterson's are actually really valuable because of that. They provide a solid, constructive, prosocial framework for living, which hopefully is read widely and taken up by people in their day-to-day lives. Same goes for the stoics, most religions, secular humanism, and so on. All the more reason to read widely! I should also recommend The Elephant in the Brain (Simler/Hanson), which synthesizes existing research to show how people are not merely ignorant of their true motives - rather, they actively deceive themselves as to what those motives are in order to better hide them from others. It complements this line of discussion rather well, and helps add depth to the notion that we don't really have control over our internal thought processes.
- Erlich_Bachman 9y ago
  How does not being conscious of all aspects of the process of choice ("ignorant (unconscious) of their true motives") somehow equate to "no free will"? If a subconscious part of me makes a choice, and I execute - that it still me making a choice isn't it? Don't you agree that "I" have both conscious and unconscious aspects? And that both are a part of "I"? Otherwise, do I have to logically think about every single part of myself, every single motivation, every single feeling in my entire being for it to count as free will? Why, what's the point? I have subconscious parts of me, which do a lot of the work for me. It's still my will. (Another thread) > Interestingly, because we also can't really "choose" (under my definition of "choice") how we see ourselves or our reality, our beliefs about choice and creativity and so on are really driven by the information that we take in and internalize. I guess we have to strongly disagree on this one. I have consciously changed a lot of beliefs and ways of seeing myself, the world, other people, the universe, etc. - during the course of my life. I can describe the process, I see where it's going, I see where it stumbles, etc. I can definitely choose these things. This choice doesn't necessarily happen in 1 second always, sometimes it takes longer time (would be really weird if such deep foundational files/drivers in my system could even be changed overnight, wouldn't it? Seems very unstable), but it's definitely happening.

iamnothere 9y ago

Thanks for the discussion, even though it is indeed a difficult one to have over a web forum! I think our positions may be more similar than either of us assumed. > One difficulty is that this difference is sometimes hard to logically talk about because of how unconscious people are. To quote Jordan Peterson (highly recommended) - people say that they like determinism and science, - and yet they act is they were sentient moral beings with choice. There is one thing that people say and think - and another that they do. For example, many people might be thinking about determinism and chemicals, and yet in their personal life they make choices like helping others, like building a better future, like sacrificing instant pleasures or even all bodily pleasures in order to achieve some higher goals, which will not even bring them any of those stimulus-response-based evolutionary candies. This is exactly the case. It would be crippling to live any other way! So much of how we think and act is more or less automatic, including our mental framing of reality and "choice." Attempting to oppose those processes is a constant battle without any real benefit. (But it is still important to understand this condition of reality while dealing with other people, designing systems, and so on!) Interestingly, because we also can't really "choose" (under my definition of "choice") how we see ourselves or our reality, our beliefs about choice and creativity and so on are really driven by the information that we take in and internalize. Approaches like Peterson's are actually really valuable because of that. They provide a solid, constructive, prosocial framework for living, which hopefully is read widely and taken up by people in their day-to-day lives. Same goes for the stoics, most religions, secular humanism, and so on. All the more reason to read widely! I should also recommend The Elephant in the Brain (Simler/Hanson), which synthesizes existing research to show how people are not merely ignorant of their true motives - rather, they actively deceive themselves as to what those motives are in order to better hide them from others. It complements this line of discussion rather well, and helps add depth to the notion that we don't really have control over our internal thought processes.

Erlich_Bachman 9y ago
How does not being conscious of all aspects of the process of choice ("ignorant (unconscious) of their true motives") somehow equate to "no free will"? If a subconscious part of me makes a choice, and I execute - that it still me making a choice isn't it? Don't you agree that "I" have both conscious and unconscious aspects? And that both are a part of "I"? Otherwise, do I have to logically think about every single part of myself, every single motivation, every single feeling in my entire being for it to count as free will? Why, what's the point? I have subconscious parts of me, which do a lot of the work for me. It's still my will. (Another thread) > Interestingly, because we also can't really "choose" (under my definition of "choice") how we see ourselves or our reality, our beliefs about choice and creativity and so on are really driven by the information that we take in and internalize. I guess we have to strongly disagree on this one. I have consciously changed a lot of beliefs and ways of seeing myself, the world, other people, the universe, etc. - during the course of my life. I can describe the process, I see where it's going, I see where it stumbles, etc. I can definitely choose these things. This choice doesn't necessarily happen in 1 second always, sometimes it takes longer time (would be really weird if such deep foundational files/drivers in my system could even be changed overnight, wouldn't it? Seems very unstable), but it's definitely happening.